Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A bit out of context isn't it? But maybe they need an education in self defense more than they need family planning advice?

That is incredibly offensive. You are basically implying that women should be taught to defend themselves to stop being raped. A. Woman are naturally physically weaker so all the defense classes in the world aren't going to help them should a man force himself upon them. But much more importantly, B. You are saying it is up to women to stop rape by getting self defense classes, rather than saying that men should fix their attitudes towards woman and that woman who are raped should be supported - that is so unbelievably offensive, worlds fail me at describing your ignorance.

:shakehead:
 
That is incredibly offensive. You are basically implying that women should be taught to defend themselves to stop being raped. A. Woman are naturally physically weaker so all the defense classes in the world aren't going to help them should a man force himself upon them.

Nonsense. With some training one can be very effective against a larger and stronger opponent especially if one is armed.
But much more importantly, B. You are saying it is up to women to stop rape by getting self defense classes, rather than saying that men should fix their attitudes towards woman and that woman who are raped should be supported - that is so unbelievably offensive, worlds fail me at describing your ignorance.

:shakehead:

You have one heck of an imagination. I never said any such thing.

What I did mean to imply was that it doesn't sound like counseling in family planning would solve the problem.

Reviewing what I wrote...
me:
But maybe they need an education in self defense more than they need family planning advice?
...I think I said it quite clearly too.

You really must try to read for content in context.

As long as you bring it up though...if African men make a habit of raping African woman, they should change their attitude. That would be great huh? A little law and law enforcement would hurt either. Hovever, in the meantime, it would seem wise for African woman to take some action in their own best interest. Lop a few of those "things" off and men won't be so quick to go waving them around. You might say that their attitudes would be "fixed" for them.
 
Ok Theunis, so you have quoted 'experts'. Let's see your sources.

But to address your points.

“Evolutionists believe for instance that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere”.

This is an absolute lie, whoever that comment was from. There have been many many transitional fossils found all around the world. Start by reading 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins for a relatively easy introduction to this part of evolutionary theory.

Theunis:
“The fundamental debate is really about the most trustworthy source of information about history. Do we start with the Bible, which God says is true in every detail, including its history, or do we start with the changing theories of imperfect man? God has filled the world with clear evidences that confirm the truth of His Word and the certainty of the Christian faith. The fossil record itself is an incredible testimony to the truth of God’s Word and His promise to “blot out” all land dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans in a worldwide catastrophe”.

This presupposes a belief in God and is therefore not an argument. It also does not list any of the "clear evidences" that confirm the truth of the B9ible and I am not sure how all land dwelling, air-breathing animals have been blotted out? At least, when I lasted checked, this was not the case ;p

Theunis:
“If one were to calculate the average depth of all of the granite that encases our earth, including the mountains and valleys both above and below water, we would end up with a 6 1/2 mile deep granite crust”.

I'll admit, geology is not my strong point. However, you've provided no data for this calculation so I have no idea how to calculate the average depth of all the granite in the world, to even verify the veracity of this statement.


Theunis:
“Scientists have traditionally taught us that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They make this claim based on the half-life (the amount of time that it takes for an inert substance to lose half of its mass) of Uranium 238 that is found in granite ore samples. This observation concludes that by the time that our earth becomes 9 billion years old, it will disintegrate and become cosmic dust”.

“It is a fact the Helium 3 naturally occurs in our upper atmosphere. It is equally true that Helium 4 is also found at the same atmospheric level. However, H-4 is a direct by-product of the dying off of the U-238 found in the granite. This decaying process produces the alpha particles that ascend into our upper atmosphere, which in turn produces the H-4. By again equating the half-life of U-238 (4.5 billion years) with the volume of H-4 found in our upper atmosphere, we now know that the earth is only around 6600 years old. This equation has been academically verified and is now fully accepted by many experts in the field”.

No, no reputable expert in the field would ever agree with this statement. It is very very bad science. Read this: Specific Arguments - Moon Isotopes

Theunis:
I am not a scientist but I am merely quoting what the experts are saying. These quotes confirm what I believe in: God created everything in six glorious days and the world is not as old as many unfounded theories are indicating. Did you know that many evolutionary scientists now embrace creationary science?:D

Experts in Young Earth Creationism maybe. If you want to believe that the Earth was created in six days fine go for it. Just don't try to argue that there is scientific proof for it, as there is none (and by none I mean zero, nothing, nada).
 
I would like to refer back to the original threat namely, the question about evolution and creation.

The basic question is who to believe… the evolutionary scientists or the creationary scientists. Herewith a few quotes:

“Evolutionists believe for instance that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere”.

“The fundamental debate is really about the most trustworthy source of information about history. Do we start with the Bible, which God says is true in every detail, including its history, or do we start with the changing theories of imperfect man? God has filled the world with clear evidences that confirm the truth of His Word and the certainty of the Christian faith. The fossil record itself is an incredible testimony to the truth of God’s Word and His promise to “blot out” all land dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans in a worldwide catastrophe”.

“If one were to calculate the average depth of all of the granite that encases our earth, including the mountains and valleys both above and below water, we would end up with a 6 1/2 mile deep granite crust”.

“Scientists have traditionally taught us that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They make this claim based on the half-life (the amount of time that it takes for an inert substance to lose half of its mass) of Uranium 238 that is found in granite ore samples. This observation concludes that by the time that our earth becomes 9 billion years old, it will disintegrate and become cosmic dust”.

“It is a fact the Helium 3 naturally occurs in our upper atmosphere. It is equally true that Helium 4 is also found at the same atmospheric level. However, H-4 is a direct by-product of the dying off of the U-238 found in the granite. This decaying process produces the alpha particles that ascend into our upper atmosphere, which in turn produces the H-4. By again equating the half-life of U-238 (4.5 billion years) with the volume of H-4 found in our upper atmosphere, we now know that the earth is only around 6600 years old. This equation has been academically verified and is now fully accepted by many experts in the field”.

I am not a scientist but I am merely quoting what the experts are saying. These quotes confirm what I believe in: God created everything in six glorious days and the world is not as old as many unfounded theories are indicating. Did you know that many evolutionary scientists now embrace creationary science?:D


This makes me incredibly angry because every single one of these lies is addressed earlier in this thread. In fact, I believe that exact quote was pasted. Talk about lazy. Read the thread before you start passing on more lies and propaganda. More proof of my (supported) theory that this type of faith leads to intellectual laziness with regards to understanding the world.

There is no such thing is a "creationist scientist". It is an oxymoron in the truest sense of the word. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no studies of creationism that involve the scientific method, most especially peer review.

Sorry I was out of this thread for a few days. I just got back from the Bronx where I was attending a ceremony where a close friend of mine that I've known for close to 20 years just did her final profession of vows as a Franciscian Nun. :)
 
.

What I did mean to imply was that it doesn't sound like counseling in family planning would solve the problem.

No one said it was. It was stated as a way of supporting women who are raped.

You think that women trained in self-defence as well as being armed haven't been raped? You have no idea about rape Mike. And I know that saying that women should get self-defense classes to stop them being raped IS putting the responsibility on women to avoid rape. It is like how people say women should dress conservatively or wear a burka, not be promiscuous or sleep with men for money, to avoid being raped. No, women do not have any responsibility over whether they are raped or not and it is very offensive to suggest otherwise. I don't want to have to carry a gun, or dress conservatively or fight off a man trying to rape me, that is not what should be considered necessary in society.

Edit: I guess I can kind of see where you are coming from, though still think you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance about rape. I think that any woman who was raped would feel pretty bad if someone told them "shoulda learned self-defence" and that is why I think your comments are ill-thought out.
 
This makes me incredibly angry because every single one of these lies is addressed earlier in this thread. In fact, I believe that exact quote was pasted. Talk about lazy. Read the thread before you start passing on more lies and propaganda. More proof of my (supported) theory that this type of faith leads to intellectual laziness with regards to understanding the world.

I think you should try to get a handle on your emotions.
There is no such thing is a "creationist scientist". It is an oxymoron in the truest sense of the word. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no studies of creationism that involve the scientific method, most especially peer review.

Aren't these the basic steps of "the scientific method"?
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
 
I don't want to have to carry a gun, or dress conservatively or fight off a man trying to rape me, that is not what should be considered necessary in society.

Hope for the best but plan for the worst.
 
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Sure, but how do "Creationist Scientists" handle the fourth step?
 
For anybody interested in a good synopsis of the scientific responses to Creationist claims:

An Index to Creationist Claims

(It's probably been linked before; I didn't read the whole thread.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom